Mailing-List: contact modules-dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: modules-dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Subject: Re: Transcoding module for libxml2-based filters
From: Joachim Zobel <jzobel@heute-morgen.de>
Reply-To: jzobel@heute-morgen.de
To: modules-dev@httpd.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <20080104220644.2eeeb7d3@grimnir>
References: <20071225225455.17186c7a@grimnir>
	 <1199483236.3923.44.camel@test.asus>  <20080104220644.2eeeb7d3@grimnir>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: Not organized
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 23:39:07 +0100
Message-Id: <1199486348.3923.67.camel@test.asus>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Am Freitag, den 04.01.2008, 22:06 +0000 schrieb Nick Kew:
> > This means two different filter functions, right?
> 
> No, one function, with its behaviour determined by its ctx.

Sure? IMHO two functions that call the same infrastructure function
might be clearer. But YMMV, I am an enemy of state.

[...]

> > Why do you think it is necessary to ask other filters for
> > configuration this way? What is the advantage of this above simply
> > having configuration options for the post filter?
> 
> That gets messy, with two filters both of AP_FTYPE_RESOURCE.
> If I hack it with offsets, that breaks interaction with other
> filters.

Hmmmm. Maybe this is because I always would configure my filter chain
explititely. But everybody using your module will also have to configure
his filter chain explicitely, simply because he wants your pre filter to
run before his own AP_FTYPE_RESOURCE filter.

AddOutputFilter xml2enc-pre;user-filter;xml2enc-post

or

AddOutputFilter xml2enc-pre;sax;i18n;xml2enc-post

or

AddOutputFilter xml2enc-pre;sax;htmlplus;i18n;xml2enc-post

OK, messy has its point here.

Sincerely,
Joachim